Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After the district court denied his motion to suppress, Defendant pled guilty to smuggling ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 554(a). Defendant timely appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. This appeal challenges that denial. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress because of the consistent conclusions of Judge Gould and Judge Bea, which represent a majority of the panel, even though the reasoning of Judge Gould and Judge Bea in their separate concurrences is different.   The Ninth Circuit noted that one exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of searches and seizures conducted without prior approval by judge or magistrate is a Terry stop, which allows an officer to briefly detain an individual when the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that an individual is engaged in a crime, during which stop an officer may also conduct a limited protective frisk if the officer has reason to believe the individual has a weapon. The panel noted that another exception is when an officer has probable cause to arrest an individual. View "USA V. SERGIO GUERRERO" on Justia Law

Petitioner was sentenced to death in 1994 after a state jury convicted him of first-degree murder and several other offenses. He appeals the district court’s denial of his federal habeas corpus petition.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition brought by Petitioner, who was sentenced to death in 1994 after a state jury convicted him of first-degree murder and other offenses. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s certified claim that the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).   Because the California Supreme Court unreasonably applied Johnson, the panel reviewed de novo Petitioner’s Batson claim to determine whether he raised an inference of racial bias at Step One. The panel noted that trial courts are often well-situated to decide the Step One question without conducting a formal comparative juror analysis, but wrote that when an appellate court must decide whether the trial court that denied a Batson motion should instead have drawn an inference that discrimination occurred, Batson supports the use of comparative juror analysis.   Accordingly, pursuant to Batson’s three-step framework, the panel could not say the California Supreme Court erred by ruling that Petitioner did not make a prima facie showing to shift the burden to the prosecutor to explain the actual motivation for the peremptory challenges. View "JAIME HOYOS V. RONALD DAVIS" on Justia Law

Defendant, an at the Federal Detention Center (FDC) in Honolulu, repeatedly punched and kicked another inmate. The inmate suffered multiple serious injuries, including a broken jaw. Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of assault resulting in serious bodily injury, a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 113(a)(6).   The inmate did not testify, but the district court admitted his statements—that he was assaulted and that his pain level was an eight out of ten—through the testimony of a nurse and a surgeon who treated him. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a conviction for assault. The panel held that the district court properly admitted the statements made by the inmate to his medical providers, as the statements fell within the hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4). The panel also held that admission of these statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because their primary purpose was to evaluate and treat the inmates injuries rather than to establish past facts for trial. View "USA V. TALOA LATU" on Justia Law

Defendant, a prison guard, shot Plaintiff with three sponge-tipped plastic rounds during a prison fight, breaking Plaintiff’s leg and injuring his butt and thigh. Following the fight, prison nurse assessed Plaintiff’s injuries and transferred him to an emergency room without fully completing her notes or conducting a full body examination.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for Defendants in Plaintiff’s action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs. The panel first held that the district court correctly concluded that there was no constitutional violation. The guard’s decision to shoot Plaintiff with sponge rounds was not excessive use of force. He had a duty to keep prison staff and the prisoners in his care safe and he used the lowest level of force available to him. Even viewing the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there was no evidence showing that Arnett had any improper motive, let alone that he acted “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.”   As to the nurse, rather than deliberate indifference, her actions seemed to reflect the conduct of a medical professional who quickly and successfully ensured that her patient received the appropriate level of care. The court held that Defendants were therefore entitled to protection under the doctrine of qualified immunity and summary judgment was properly entered in their favor. View "KEVIN SIMMONS V. G. ARNETT" on Justia Law

At issue was whether police officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff either for reports that he followed and harassed an attorney outside a courthouse or for Plaintiff’s refusal to identify himself during an investigatory stop. Defendants asserted that they had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff on two grounds: (1) disturbing the peace under California Penal Code Section 415(2); and (2) obstructing an officer under California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1).   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Pasadena and Pasadena police officers in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that plaintiff was unlawfully arrested. Plaintiff first argued that, because he was arrested under California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1), that means it was disputed whether probable cause existed under Section 415(2). The panel disagreed, stating first that it was well-established that if the facts support probable cause for one offense, an arrest may be lawful even if the officer invoked, as the basis for the arrest, a different offense that lacked probable cause. Second, by the time of Plaintiff’s arrest, the officers learned enough facts to believe that Plaintiff had violated Section 415(2) and therefore had probable cause to make the arrest.   Having found no violation of the Fourth Amendment, there was no need to proceed to the second question of the qualified immunity analysis—whether the unlawfulness of the officer's conduct was not “clearly established.” Further, the panel held that no “controlling authority” or “robust consensus of cases” prohibited the officer from arresting Plaintiff under the facts confronting him View "JAVIER VANEGAS V. CITY OF PASADENA" on Justia Law

Petitioner was accused of sexually abusing two young girls and fled Alaska soon after. The State of Alaska filed an information that same year, but Petitioner was neither apprehended nor charged by indictment until 2004, when an employment background check in Minnesota alerted Alaskan authorities to Petitioner’s whereabouts, leading to his arrest and extradition. Petitioner completed his prison sentence and probation in 2016.   Petitioner challenged the 2009 conviction as a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial because of Alaska’s delay in apprehending and indicting him after he fled. Before he filed this habeas petition, Petitioner was convicted in federal court in Tennessee for failing to register as a sex offender pursuant to its laws.   At issue in this appeal was whether Petitioner was “in custody pursuant to” the Alaska judgment he challenges when he filed his Section 2254 petition; if he wasn’t, the federal court lacks jurisdiction over it. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition.   The panel explained that Petitioner failed to establish jurisdiction under his restraint-on-liberty theory for reasons similar to the Supreme Court’s rejection of his supervised release theory, that is, because Petitioner does not demonstrate that Tennessee’s sex offender registration laws establish custody “pursuant to” the Alaska judgment. The panel noted that Petitioner in no way argued that he is significantly restrained by the sex offender registration laws of Alaska. View "SEAN WRIGHT V. STATE OF ALASKA" on Justia Law

The police officers at first complied with the requirement that a warrant includes a description of the “place to be searched,” by obtaining a warrant that listed a motel room suspected of being a hub for drug trafficking. The officers then decided to search the suspect’s home as well and asked the judge over the phone to expand the scope of the warrant to include the home. The judge agreed, but the officers did not physically amend the warrant.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The panel agreed with the district court that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment because the warrant was facially defective. While a judge had orally approved the search of the home, the text of the Fourth Amendment still requires the warrant to specify the place to be searched. But the panel held that the district court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that the search would violate the Fourth Amendment. An officer could have believed—based on the lack of direct case law at the time—that he or she could search the home because the court had orally approved the search, even if the officer failed to make that change on the warrant. View "RICHARD MANRIQUEZ V. JOEL ENSLEY" on Justia Law

At issue were several statements in articles published by Morgan Simon on Forbes.com that connected CoreCivic to the detention of separated families at the U.S. border and characterized its lobbying efforts as pushing for punitive criminal and immigration laws. Simon’s firm is Candide Group. CoreCivic filed suit against Simon and Candide Group (collectively “Candide”) for defamation and defamation by implication. Candide made a special motion to strike CoreCivic’s complaint under California’s antiSLAPP Act, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Section 425.16.   The Ninth Circuit held that the special motion provision of California’s anti-SLAPP statute applied in federal court, and affirmed in part the district court’s order granting Candide Group, LLC’s motion to strike the defamation complaint. The panel held that the court’s prior precedents control. In United States ex rel. v. Lockheed Missiles &Space Co., the court held that California’s anti-SLAPP statute applied in federal diversity actions because there was “no ‘direct collision’” between the statute and the relevant rules, and the twin purposes of Erie favored its application.   The panel turned to the merits of Candide’s anti-SLAPP motion. Because CoreCivic did not contest on appeal that the suit implicated Candide’s First Amendment rights, the panel needed only to determine–applying the 12(b)(6) standard–whether CoreCivic stated a claim for defamation under California law. The panel concluded that CoreCivic failed to plausibly plead a defamation or a defamation by implication claim based on statements about its connection to the separation of immigrant families at the U.S. border, and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of those claims. View "CORECIVIC, INC. V. CANDIDE GROUP, LLC" on Justia Law

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes (“FCA”) requires students serving in leadership roles to abide by a Statement of Faith, which includes the belief that sexual relations should be limited within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. The San Jose Unified School District (the “School District”) revoked FCA’s status as an official student club at its high schools, claiming that FCA’s religious pledge requirement violated the School District’s non-discrimination policy.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by a derecognized student club, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and directed the district court to enter an order reinstating the Fellowship as a student club within the San Jose Unified School District.   The panel first held that FCA National had direct organizational standing and Pioneer High School FCA had representational organizational standing to seek prospective injunctive relief. The School District’s denial of Associated Student Body (“ASB”) recognition hampered FCA National’s ability to further student engagement with the Christian faith and required it to expend significant time and resources to assist its student members.   Addressing the merits, the panel first held that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction sought to maintain the status quo that existed before the School District’s novel scrutiny of FCA—a prohibitory injunction—so the district court erred in applying the heightened standard for mandatory injunctions. The panel held that Plaintiffs would likely prevail on the merits of its selective enforcement claim under the Free Exercise Clause. View "FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLET V. SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRI" on Justia Law

Petitioner asserted that he is entitled to relief on several grounds, the majority of which the panel addressed in a memorandum disposition filed on January 15, 2021. In this opinion, as amended, the panel addressed Petitioner’s certified claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel— that counsel did not investigate and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase, including evidence of diffuse brain damage, childhood abuse, and substance abuse.   The Ninth Circuit (1) filed an amended opinion along with Judge Gould’s separate concurrence, (2) denied a petition for panel rehearing, and (3) denied on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc, in a case in which the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition challenging his Arizona conviction and death sentence for first-degree murder.   Because Washington filed his habeas petition before the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the panel reviewed the claim under the standard set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and its progeny, without the added deference required under AEDPA.   The panel held that Washington did not meet his burden under the first Strickland prong of showing constitutionally deficient performance by failing to obtain and review Washington’s education and incarceration records. The panel held that Washington did not meet his burden of showing that trial counsel erred by not further investigating Washington’s childhood abuse, to the extent that he could have, or by not presenting the information he did not have regarding abuse at sentencing hearing. View "WASHINGTON V. DAVID SHINN" on Justia Law